Why the sudden urgency of getting rid of him? Did the weapons of mass destruction fall from the sky?

1. 9-11
2. Republican President
3. It wasn't sudden, 12 years is enough time to comply.

EdMcMan wrote:

If France said they would veto (and stop the US' proposal) that is how it should be. That's what a veto is for.

They said ANY proposal that would would lead to force would be vetoed. Diplomacy was absolutely exhausted. What do you do with someone who commits a crime? Prosecute or just keep giving them verbal warnings? Without consequences, laws and RESOLUTIONS mean squat.

EdMcMan wrote:

If Bush was going to neglect the UN's decision, he never should have went there in the first place.

I think this is the 3rd time I've tried to make this clear. UN decision? What UN decision? 1441? Bush enforced 1441, quite the opposite of what you think.

EdMcMan wrote:

The real hypocrite here is the nation who dropped two nuclear bombs on non-combatants in order to create terror that would hopefully avoid a war is taking it upon itself to become the sole protector of the world from weapons of mass destruction.

Oh boy, you just opened a new can of worms. First of all, after America defeated the Japanese military, Japan promised the every citizen of their country would fight to the death. So that doesn't make them non-combatants to me. I consider those 2 nuke were warning shots, and damnit they worked. Japan's 2 most populated cities could have been targeted.

I'm about through with this topic. But there are some things I just can't let go._________________"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?." -Maximus

Please do not PM me. Use email, Feedback or Contact Us links.

Yvond
Lieutenant

Joined: Apr 02, 2002
Member#: 39
Posts: 178

Posted:
Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:08 pm Post subject:

I completely agree with Jeric. Less lives were lost in the two nulcear bombings than would have occured if the United States had been forced to defeat Japan and the rest of "island hopped" areas by direct military combat. Do you now how many lives were lost in the Philippeans and Okinawa alone? Honestly, I cannot believe I am hearing this. And having lived in an Asian country for a number of years I can tell you they would have fought for every inch of land by tooth and nail had the fight moved directly to the islands of Japan. Honor and losing face is not something taken lightly in Asian cultures.

Not only that, but the Japanese were using suicide bombers at the end of the war to devasting effect---and you want to talk about the United States instigating terrorist type tactics here??? Those nuclear bombs forced the unconditional surrender of Japan, the end of WWII, and also prevented a country (and the surrounding regions) from becoming completely devastated by further military combat. They saved countless lives in America, Japan, China, Russia, and so many other places that I cannot believe that this was even brought forth in this discussion.

Ed, you have lost all credibility on these forums by proving yourself to be uneducated and a blowhard.

Had you ever bothered to open a book you would know that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen because they were both industrial powerhorses of the Japanese war machine.

Tokyo, a more obvious target, was not chosen due to the amount of civilian life that would have been lost.

I have no idea where Corellia is. Judging from your website, somewhere in PA. If you are indeed an American then you yourself are the biggest hypocrite here. Many of us in the USA would not exist today if it were not for those two atomic bombs, as many of our Grandfather's would have been killed during a land invasion of Japan.

Ed, despite your naivety, you are not the first person to come on here spouting this nonsense. I wonder where you acquired your uninformed notions.

And Jeric, damn I love it when you put up your dukes.

Caray
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France

Posted:
Fri Apr 11, 2003 5:48 am Post subject:

We're mad at the french because they are trying to actually enforce UN policies, rather than just make up "Bush knows better than the UN. In fact, Bush knows better than everyone" policies.

That is incorrect, it was France (and others) that wanted to deviate and extend the date stated "U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441" which called for Irag to disarm or "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution. Bush gave Saddam 3 days past the date to surrender. The U.S. & U.K. enforced the resolution.

*cough* as a matter of fact, the resolution did not call for war. And Bush did say that even if the inspectors came with a clean bill of health he would attack because their report would be wrong. Which is what he did.
Just to put things to right, I was against that war only for this reason. Had Bush got the UN OK, I would have cheered with the others._________________My reality cheque bounced

Btw, I am still waiting for the US and UK to find those Weapons of Mass Destruction they say Irak has. So far... none were found... Hmmmm._________________Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering.

JERIC
Fleet Admiral (Proprietor)

Joined: Feb 12, 2002
Member#: 1
Posts: 4939
Location: Richmond, VA

Posted:
Fri Apr 11, 2003 6:45 am Post subject:

Caray wrote:

*cough* as a matter of fact, the resolution did not call for war. And Bush did say that even if the inspectors came with a clean bill of health he would attack because their report would be wrong. Which is what he did.
Just to put things to right, I was against that war only for this reason. Had Bush got the UN OK, I would have cheered with the others.

That's right, it called for serious consequenses which meant "if you don't disarm, we will disarm you". What do you suppose they do, tickle their weapons away from them. I don't rememer Bush saying that. It would be great if you can give me a quote and source on that. No WMD found yet that I know of but plenty of chemical plants and traces of WMD. It's only been 3 weeks. I'm confident that coalition forces will find something at the end of the rainbow. Besides, the US/UK will not get any credit when they finally do find WMD. I'm sure many of you will say that they planted it. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?_________________"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?." -Maximus

Please do not PM me. Use email, Feedback or Contact Us links.

SlowMo
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: Mar 20, 2002
Member#: 29
Posts: 390
Location: Ghent, Belgium

Posted:
Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:55 pm Post subject:

This thread is becoming way to big for me to catch up. So I'm just going to state my opinion, not caring to quote or directly reply to someone or something.

To my knowledge there has not been a clear casus belli to this war, with which I mean a direct cause and/or justification. I've seen the entire spectrum of excuses for the war having started anyway in this thread by the obvious pro-faction.

What really offended me though is the statement that France was deviating a UN resolution. The resolution was in effect and the majority of UN Council members thought the weapons inspections were going well. It was the US and the UK that wanted a NEW resolution to start the war, remember? And France said it wasn't agreeing with that NEW resolution, if it contained unreasonable clauses. A right France has because it has a veto power.

The US also has a veto power, and has used it for more than 50 times to block resolutions on Israel, now how come we don't call US products freedom (freedom cola, mc freedom)???

All is well now, Iraq lost it's dictator, and that is still a good thing. I sincerely hope Iraq is not going the same way as Afghanistan in terms of 'nation building'. Oh something else : don't allow any democratic system over there or you'll have a second Algeria (where the people voted for a fundamentalist muslim regime).

Oh and biased news... Well it's always been and always will be, biased.. It's human nature.

PS : what WMD's? where? direct and indirect thread my ass..._________________"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -- Gary Larson

The lack of common sense some of you exhibit astounds me sometimes. ....well, actually it doesn't.

What you kiddies do is sit around going about your daily lives, getting all your info from any news source that spouts your views and then regurtating them like so much vomit on the rest of us.

How about you put the paper down and apply some rational thought or even common sense to what you are hearing.

Of course we have not found any weapons of mass destruction yet. Are you daft? Did you honestly expect Saddam to leave them lieing around for us to find?

This isn't too hard to figure out, but I'll lead you through it anyway.

The US has been banging on Iraq's door like the cops for months, and Iraq has obviously done what all people do with their contraband within the seconds they have before the cops burst in with their warrant. They flush it! They hide it! They give it to their friends to keep safe until the cops go away and everything has returned back to normal.

Those WMD's were either recently dismantled, hidden somewhere in Iraq, or given to someone like Syria to keep under wraps.

We've found where he has been making these weapons. Maybe we will find the weapons themselves, maybe we won't. But the fact that we will have stopped him from making more is invaluable.

So I have been gone for a while, Busy with school, but I am still tuned in with the world. So let me dive right in.

One of coarse you won't find WMD. They have found little evidence. Which you all think is planted. But I am sure, that once, more people feel safe about the fact that sadam is going away. They may have help finding shit. Its crazy that all of you who say I don't support this war, and that the Coalition forces have no point to be there, you are crazy. They are there to take out a man who hurts people for pleasure. They are there to liberate the people! You CONSTANTLY argue and then you waited to prove us wrong. But they only way we could be proven right, (at least about the WMD) are if Sadam would have used them against us. And that is why we went there in the first place.

And Yes Eyedea propaganda is a big thing during war. It is necessary! And every country uses it. And when they use it, they need the media to channel it.

This is really jumpy I know, but my brain is going so fast right now it's hard for me to organize all of this and make it simple for you who have simple minds.

The thing is that America has known for a looooong ass time what Sadam has been doing. We have that intelligence. But we didn't have a president who would do anything about it. Like Jeric said, 12 years has been long enough. Well 12 years ago Clinton was in office. And if there is one thing to be said about Clintons run, other than booty booty bounce bounce fun! Is that the man never took any big risks. He didn't want to deal with IRAQ even though he knew what was going on. It would have been too much of a gamble in his ratings to go after sadam.

What my country does now is solely a humanitarian fight. They are trying to make a better place, by helping and liberating one-third world country at a time. And I can bet you my life that in five years after Iraq is done; we will choose a new country, LIKE KOREA. And this World might just be a little less chaotic over time.

And lets face it. Clinton never bothered with the U.N. they on UN he cared about was between the C AND THE T. (Joke from Dennis Miller) the thing is The U.N. needs a lot of help. If you ask me the European Union has more sense. They can at least create laws. The UN needs to be able to make world laws, and be able to enforce them. With more than just the US forces, that the world so hates!

That's it try the best to make sense of it! Take your time and let things soak in.

EdMcMan
Ensign

Joined: Mar 27, 2003
Member#: 423
Posts: 26
Location: Corellia

Posted:
Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:24 pm Post subject:

If Saddam was such a big problem, why did Bush wait until late in his term to start a war?

Quote:

What my country does now is solely a humanitarian fight. They are trying to make a better place, by helping and liberating one-third world country at a time. And I can bet you my life that in five years after Iraq is done; we will choose a new country, LIKE KOREA. And this World might just be a little less chaotic over time.

What is this war about? If it's solely a humanitarian fight what is all this WMD nonsense? What do oil companies have to do with humanitarianism? I think the Iraqis can refine their own oil.

Either way, this is an international issue, not a US one. International issues go through international politics. If you try to say the US is following the UN resolution, think of this: If I am innocent before proven guilty, and I decide not to show up to court, does that make me innocent?

JERIC
Fleet Admiral (Proprietor)

Joined: Feb 12, 2002
Member#: 1
Posts: 4939
Location: Richmond, VA

Posted:
Fri Apr 11, 2003 9:41 pm Post subject:

Frankly, I don't even care if they don't find WMD. There is enough justification why Sadam and his Regime should have been terminated.

Quote:

If Saddam was such a big problem, why did Bush wait until late in his term to start a war?

A: Chance, Chance, France, Chance, France, Chance, Chance...

Quote:

What is this war about? If it's solely a humanitarian fight what is all this WMD nonsense? What do oil companies have to do with humanitarianism? I think the Iraqis can refine their own oil.

Oil? That is the lamest cop-out I keep hearing. Even if it was about oil, so what? Liberals won’t let us tap into our own resources because of the “environment”, and then they bitch about the prices at the gas pump. The war is not solely about anything. Like I said above, there are many reasons.

Quote:

But we didn't have a president who would do anything about it.

Hence 9-11. If Clinton could keep his dick out of interns didn’t deteriorate our military and intelligence in attempt to "stimulate" (inflate) the economy and make himself look as a hero, 9-11 could have been prevented.

I think people believe what they want to believe. Could very well be why we have religion. The difference between me and people who oppose my views on the war in Iraq is: I want to believe that we are ultimately doing something that benefits everyone and others want to believe in a conspiracy. I think believing in a conspiracy is lazy and people don't have enough drama in their lives so they have to create their own. "Look at me, Look at me, I'm going against what everyone would normally think is right. Aren’t I cool? Come join me in a war protest!" Instead of, "Let's save up some food, clothing, and materials and send it to the poor people of Iraq.”

Bottom Line: My family is safer now that I know that the chance of Iraq harboring terrorists or selling WMD to terrorists is near zero. I'm happy for the people of Iraq too.
[/quote]_________________"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?." -Maximus

Please do not PM me. Use email, Feedback or Contact Us links.

EdMcMan
Ensign

Joined: Mar 27, 2003
Member#: 423
Posts: 26
Location: Corellia

Posted:
Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:08 pm Post subject:

JERIC wrote:

Frankly, I don't even care if they don't find WMD. There is enough justification why Sadam and his Regime should have been terminated.

Yup. Does the US have the authority to make that decision? Nope.

JERIC wrote:

A: Chance, Chance, France, Chance, France, Chance, Chance...

Yes, it is indeed a chance for Bush to get himself reelected. If the US does not want to deal with France, they should withdraw from the UN.

JERIC wrote:

Oil? That is the lamest cop-out I keep hearing. Even if it was about oil, so what? Liberals won’t let us tap into our own resources because of the “environment”, and then they bitch about the prices at the gas pump. The war is not solely about anything. Like I said above, there are many reasons.

So what? Maybe this is just me, but I find invading other nations for oil plainly wrong. Why don't we just take over the world? What are those reasons?

JERIC wrote:

Hence 9-11. If Clinton could keep his dick out of interns didn’t deteriorate our military and intelligence in attempt to "stimulate" (inflate) the economy and make himself look as a hero, 9-11 could have been prevented.

Sorry, I find that amusing. The economy and nation was doing far better under Clinton than under Bush, and I hate Clinton. Bush is the one attempting to make himself look like the hero though. Last time I checked 9-11 could have been prevented by an FBI policy change. Try blaming the FBI director, not previous presidents.

JERIC wrote:

I think people believe what they want to believe. Could very well be why we have religion. The difference between me and people who oppose my views on the war in Iraq is: I want to believe that we are ultimately doing something that benefits everyone and others want to believe in a conspiracy. I think believing in a conspiracy is lazy and people don't have enough drama in their lives so they have to create their own. "Look at me, Look at me, I'm going against what everyone would normally think is right. Aren’t I cool? Come join me in a war protest!" Instead of, "Let's save up some food, clothing, and materials and send it to the poor people of Iraq.”

And I think the majority of people just believe in propaganda and don't look at facts. The fact that I'm here arguing with you should prove I'm not here to say "look at me, look at me".

JERIC wrote:

Bottom Line: My family is safer now that I know that the chance of Iraq harboring terrorists or selling WMD to terrorists is near zero. I'm happy for the people of Iraq too.

I'm glad you feel safer. The fact still remains that Iraq has (or had) no WMDs that could affect the US, short of bringing over a virus or something. Iraq could however harm nearby countries. That is all the more reason it should have been a UN matter and not a US one. Once again, name some terrorists Iraq has been harboring and I'll concede that point to you.

Trilobyte
Lieutenant Junior Grade

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Member#: 58
Posts: 56
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posted:
Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:46 pm Post subject:

You know, I don't see how it makes sense for the United States to demand disarmament from Iraq when America is keeping thousands of nuclear warheads to itself and withdrawing from arms-reduction treaties. What the U.S. is doing to the so-called "rogue states" is no different from what the RIAA is doing to Internet webcasters. It is a way for the powerful to pick on the weak, out of greed and arrogance._________________My top 5 soundtracks:1. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial2. Jurassic Park3. Apollo 134. A.I. Artificial Intelligence5. Forrest Gump

Yak E. Tory
Ensign

Joined: Feb 26, 2003
Member#: 369
Posts: 40
Location: California, USA

Posted:
Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:48 am Post subject:

Hey Trilobyte! The reason that the United States can possess nuclear weapons and still demand the disarmament of Iraq is because we don't constantly threaten everybody who we don't like with a nuclear strike, and we don't gas people just for the hell of it because we're losing a war. Saddam does. Or *did*, hopefully; he shan't be doing it any more, shall he?

Hey McMan! By the way, I think your constant commentary is awesome. And by awesome I mean extremely puddish.

Eddie Ed, if you think that 9-11 could have been prevented by a simple FBI policy change, then you really are a simpleton. Believing what the sensationalist 10 o'clock news tells you when they say "COULD 9-11 have been PREVENTED by a SIMPLE FBI POLICY CHANGE?!?!!" is truly the mark of a silly-putty mind. Seriously. If you believe that 9-11 wasn't the result of a myriad (that means a lot) of different causes and building cultrual clashes... and if only... IF ONLY they had cross-checked every single one of thirty million visitor visas issued each year, then hey, maybe five or six of the hijackers wouldn't have made it into this country, and we'd still be eating Cream of Wheat at Windows on the World.

And dude... the mere fact that you continue posting, over and over again, on an internet forum is the clearest evidence of all that you are, repeatedly, saying "Here look at me, look at me." If you weren't, you'd be out doing something about your views instead of spending your time typing in discussion forums.

Oh, yeah, and that was a winner, too- "Iraq has no WMDS that could affect the US, short of bringing over a virus or something." Check the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Webster, and you'll see that that's precisely what a WMD is, turkey. Biological weapons are exactly what we're worried about. I know that was probably an impulsive add-on on your part, but I'll crack it anyway.

And let's see... were you the one who brought up the bombing of Japan in WWII? Let me go back and check... hmm... ah, yes you were.

You used the words "that would hopefully avoid a war." We were in a war already, blowhard (go Cocles). Was that creating terror, or responding to it? But, you know, since Cocles and Jeric already crapped you for that one, I'll just sum it up by saying "way to go" by reverting to the most cliche, overused, desperate, last-attempt dry gulch shot at the U.S. in bringing up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Your usage of that fall-back is simply illustration that you're running out of ideas, or that your opposition is shooting them down methodically (that means... never mind).

You also cracked the US setting up a friendly government in Japan after the war. Well, shit, that government sure worked out crappy for them, didn't it? Oh wait. Being that I'm looking at a Sony monitor, driving a Toyota, and my pacemaker was made in Kyoto, maybe they're doing okay for themselves. I originally ended this paragraph after "Oh wait," but then I thought that maybe you needed the extra clarification, since you've shown a severe lack of insight up to this point.

I'll name a terrorist that Iraq has been harboring. Saddam Hussein. Did you forget the Scuds that he just lobbed over into Israel a few years ago because he hates Jews? Or perhaps that he invaded Kuwait because he wanted the oil, a favorite motivation of yours to kink America for? This guy that gasses his own people because they started to talk dirty about him? Yeah yeah. Charming fellow. You certainly win that one.

I'll end there._________________==="I said it was impossible; I never said I couldn't do it."